 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Bodrick v. United States, No. 01-CF-1120,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for first-degree burglary (D.C. Code § 22-801) and other offenses were affirmed; despite defendant's status as "legal lessee," the government needed to establish only that the victim occupied and used the subject residential dwelling. The offenses of assault with a dangerous weapon and aggravated assault did not merge.
|
|||||
| Jeffrey v. United States, Nos. 01-CF-932 & 04-CO-252,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court lacked jurisdiction over D.C. Code Ann. § 23-110 motion once defendant was no longer in custody, and absence of prejudice precluded counsel ineffectiveness finding. For purposes of D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4502.01, 1000-foot "gun-free zone" began at edge of school grounds, not at school building.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. Magafan, No. 04-CV-1076,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment to an alleged employer under the Wage Payment Act, D.C. Code § 32-1301 et seq., was reversed; although the alleged employee's compliance with the court rules was deficient, it would have been unreasonable to disregard his evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact regarding his employer's identity.
|
|||||
| Wallasey Tenants Ass'n v. Varner, Nos. 03-CV-763 & 03-CV-1037,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transfer for private family purposes of apartment house ownership to landlord's own limited liability company was not a sale triggering tenants' right of first refusal under D.C. Code Ann. § 42-3404.02(a). Landlord was not the aggrieved party, so it could not seek attorney's fees under D.C. Code Ann. § 42-3405.03.
|
|||||
| Davis & Assocs. v. Williams, No. 03-CV-284,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A contractor suing on its contract to enable a public hospital's collection of federal benefits did not exhaust administrative remedies by not presenting its claim to the Contract Appeals Board (CAB), under D.C. Code § 2-309.03(a)(2) (2001), as its contract was not for federal funds. CAB jurisdiction was unaffected by a declaratory relief request.
|
|||||
| In re Edelstein, No. 02-BG-71,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A recommendation by the Board on Professional Responsibility to impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 11(c)(1) and (2) on an attorney who was disciplined by disbarment in New York was accepted by the court, as due process was satisfied where the attorney had notice of the charge and an opportunity to be heard.
|
|||||
| In re de Clue, No. 05-BG-474,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney was disbarred by in Missouri, inter alia, for abandoning clients, failing to cooperate with the disciplinary authorities, and practicing law while suspended, his actions violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 5.5(a), and 8.1; therefore, the attorney was disbarred as a matter of reciprocal discipline.
|
|||||
| Cade v. United States, Nos. 01-CF-1309, 05-CO-124,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 27, 2006, Decided ** The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published, with minor modifications, at the request of the appellee.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's D.C. Code § 23-110 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel was properly denied without a hearing. Trial counsel's representation was not complete denial of right to counsel that resulted in Government's case having not been subject to adversarial testing; rather, counsel was deeply engaged in representation of defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
